This descriptive case study examined how highly experienced raters do writing assessment, with a focus on how raters defined the task under two conditions: (1) as external raters and (2) as 'teacher as rater'. Three raters followed a think-aloud procedure as they evaluated student writing. The semantic structure of the think-aloud protocols was analyzed via the Task Independent Coding method. This analysis yielded a detailed representation of the objects and operations used by raters. The sequence which raters followed as they used these objects and operations was represented schematically by problem behavior graphs for each scoring decision made (N = 360). Analyses of the problem behavior graphs showed that raters defined the task in three very different ways: (1) by searching the rubric to make a match between their response to the text and the language of the scoring rubric (search task definition), (2) by assigning a score directly based on a quick general impression (simple recognition task definition), or (3) by analyzing the criteria prior to score assignment without considering alternative scores (complex recognition task definition). Raters differed in their use of task definitions when they evaluated the same texts. These results challenged current Writing assessment procedures which assume that raters Internalize a scoring rubric during training and make a direct match between the scoring rubric and text characteristics. In addition, these results indicated that task definition is related to individual characteristics of the rater rather than status as a rater (i.e., external rater or 'teacher as rater'). These findings are discussed in terms of the effect of different task definitions on the validity of writing assessment.

This thesis considers the philosophical importance of the literary form of two aphoristic works of philosophy: Nietzsche’s Human, All Too Human and Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Though both these German-speaking philosophers are widely thought to be aphorists, there is little consensus about what exactly is aphoristic about their individual or shared literary forms. While their philosophies and forms of aphorisms are quite different in practice, this thesis argues that Nietzsche’s and Wittgenstein’s modes of aphoristic expression are essential to their philosophical projects in these works. This thesis also explores the particular challenges of interpreting aphorisms in a philosophical context. Though aphorisms have various literary qualities, their status as discrete pieces of philosophy is of greatest interest here. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein match their piecework form of writing to various philosophical goals they set themselves. Their success as highly stylized, aphoristic philosophers is particularly remarkable in light of conventional philosophical writing, which is generally conducted in a much less “fragmented” form. By examining the styles, forms, structures, rhetorics, and interpretations of these two works, this thesis investigates the necessity and practice of their intriguing and difficult modes of expression.

Photocopy of typescript. / Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1980. / Bibliography: leaves 232-241. / Microfiche. / ix, 241 leaves, bound 28 cm

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2007. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-06, Section: A, page: 2438. Adviser: Peter Mortensen. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 230-242) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2007. / Eric Le Calvez, committee chair; Bruno Braunrot, committee member. Electronic text (58 p.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed Jan. 29, 2008; title from file title page. Includes bibliographical references (p. 56-58).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Georgia State University, 2007. / Title from file title page. George Pullman, committee chair; Marti Singer, Lyneé Gaillet, committee members. Electronic text (235 p. : ill. (some col.)) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed Nov. 14, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 228-235).

Thesis (M.A.)--Brigham Young University. Dept. of English, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 126-131).

Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Political Science, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2005. / (UnM)AAI3200126. Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-12, Section: A, page: 4396. Supervisor: Eric Rothstein.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, Dept. of Communication and Culture, 2006. / Title from dissertation PDF t.p. (viewed Oct. 30, 2008). Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-08, Section: A, page: 2967. Adviser: Robert L. Ivie.